saemo Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Of course. I also think you are prooftexting, or if you like, the logical fallacy of taking out of context.
Log Posted April 4, 2012 Author Posted April 4, 2012 Let's address that.In these verses, Christ is explicitly claiming not to know what the Father knows. Is that agreed upon?
saemo Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Let's address that.In these verses, Christ is explicitly claiming not to know what the Father knows. Is that agreed upon?Yes.
Log Posted April 4, 2012 Author Posted April 4, 2012 Ok. The rest resides in the application of the rules of propositional logic.Anyways, I don't mean to make light of, or to beleaguer, you.I used to believe certain things were true until someone presented a similar argument to me. Unfortunately, I was stuck, and while it hurt, I changed my position on those topics, which, as it was shown, were really the same topic.Peace.
saemo Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Ok. The rest resides in the application of the rules of propositional logic.Anyways, I don't mean to make light of, or to beleaguer, you.I used to believe certain things were true until someone presented a similar argument to me. Unfortunately, I was stuck, and while it hurt, I changed my position on those topics, which, as it was shown, were really the same topic.Peace.Wait, lol, you still didn't address the out of context. The context being for me, Jesus Christ, since He is the one speaking.Which brings us back to the nature of Jesus, fully God and fully Man, and Phil. 2.
Log Posted April 4, 2012 Author Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) The sole context , and topic, was the contents of Christ's knowledge, which we agreed upon. Edited April 4, 2012 by Log
saemo Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 The sole context , and topic, was the contents of Christs knowledge, which we agreed upon.Christ's knowledge is dependent upon His nature. Just as yours is. As humans, we do not know when God is going to do anything. Neither did Jesus, as He was truly, and fully, human.
Log Posted April 4, 2012 Author Posted April 4, 2012 Do you wish to deny that Jesus was truly, and fully, God?I think that was covered early on with other posters, but ... ?
ChristKnight Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Allow me, as an ex-Catholic, to clarify what saemo seems to be saying:Trinitarians hold that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. He has two distinct natures, one divine, and one human. In this belief, they hold that certain verses, such as Matt 24:36 and Mark 13:32 (as referenced above), are only talking about Christ in His human nature, not His divine. So, they believe that Christ is omniscient in His divine nature, but not His human nature, since they are distinct (yet "part" of the same Person). So when the Bible says that not even the Son knows something, but only the Father, the Trinitarian interprets that to mean that the Son in His human nature didn't know something that only the Father knows, not in the Son's divine, fully God, nature.Hope that helps.
LeSellers Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Trinitarians hold that Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man. He has two distinct natures, one divine, and one human. In this belief, they hold that certain verses, such as Matt 24:36 and Mark 13:32 (as referenced above), are only talking about Christ in His human nature, not His divine. ... the Son in His human nature didn't know something that only the Father knows, not in the Son's divine, fully God, nature.Hope that helps.Unfortunately, not much, but thanks for the attempt.I'm not a scholar, nor am I a theologian, so I don't pretent to be able to unravel this confusion.Lehi
Log Posted April 4, 2012 Author Posted April 4, 2012 CK,I'm aware of that response. Unfortunately, the text doesn't admit of such an interpretation; it has to be imposed upon it.
saemo Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 Do you wish to deny that Jesus was truly, and fully, God?I think that was covered early on with other posters, but ... ?No one denies the nature of Jesus Christ. Phil 2 explains explicitly and clearly, God emptied Himself and became one of us. So if you want the logical steps, you need to add one more.1. The Trinity is God as three divine persons, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. These three persons are distinct yet coexist in unity, and are co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial.2. This one being is omniscient, and therefore knows everything.3. God became man: "Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped. Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance, he humbled himself, becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross."4. It is written, in Matthew 24:36: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father."As has been explained several times, Jesus emptied Himself. Other places speak of God lowering Himself for our sake. Just as you, a human, do not know the time of Christ's return, neither did the Man Jesus.If your objection is, Jesus should know because He is God, then I don't think you are understanding the Incarnation as Trinitarians do.
Log Posted April 4, 2012 Author Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) There is no objection.A being which is not omniscient is not God. (P2) Edited April 4, 2012 by Log
saemo Posted April 4, 2012 Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) There is no objection.A being which is not omniscient is not God. (P2)Which is not what I, or the scriptures, say about Jesus Christ. He God, He is omniscient. I think you are arguing that He is not, which is confusing, since I've had more than one Mormon tell me they believe Jesus is God and has always been God. (Also a thread here recently where LDS were adamant that God is not omniscient.) Edited April 4, 2012 by saemo
Log Posted April 4, 2012 Author Posted April 4, 2012 (edited) I think you are arguing that He is not [omniscient].Christ said he did not know what the Father knew, therefore he was not omniscient.Throughout this discussion, I have been using the terms of the discussion the way you or other classical theists would understand them. Edited April 4, 2012 by Log
saemo Posted April 5, 2012 Posted April 5, 2012 Christ said he did not know what the Father knew, therefore he was not omniscient.Throughout this discussion, I have been using the terms of the discussion the way you or other classical theists would understand them.Log, you use the terms without understanding their meaning, and leaving important meaning out, telling us it is "irrelevant". So, that's that. I think you are giving it an honest try, but have beliefs so dissimilar it isn't possible for you to understand.The Triduum begins this evening with the Mass of the Lord's Supper. I don't plan on checking in on the threads here until after Easter Sunday. Have a blessed Easter.
Log Posted April 6, 2012 Author Posted April 6, 2012 Log, you use the terms without understanding their meaning, and leaving important meaning out, telling us it is "irrelevant". So, that's that. I think you are giving it an honest try, but have beliefs so dissimilar it isn't possible for you to understand.Saemo,You'll have to forgive me. The problem is not one of differing beliefs at this point, and it's not even necessary to understand the contents of the terms past a certain point. This argument can be abstractly symbolized, where words are not even used, and the conclusion would still follow.Nevertheless, have a happy Easter.
Recommended Posts